Institutionalizing the Something-for-Nothing Paradigm
"Free" is often a very dangerous word
A topic that was discussed profusely during the 2020 election has resurfaced recently: whether the United States should have a Universal Basic Income (UBI). This is the notion that a government should pay all of its citizens a basic income in cash (or by check) without work requirements, simply because they citizens (or, under some proposals, legal residents). The idea took center stage while Andrew Yang was running for president in 2020, as it became an integral part of his platform.
I read Chis Feiman’s response to Bryan Caplan’s comments on UBI, that demonstrated his (Feiman’s) advocacy for it. Many advocates for redistributionist programs such as welfare or UBI advocate for each program individually vs. the status quo. This makes it easier for the readers or audience to understand the differences between the programs and simplifies the analysis.
The problem is individual arguments about UBI, welfare, charity and the like, do not actually exist in reality as discrete elements, rendering debates interesting, but moot. Every policy or law that gets implemented sends two messages to the public:
Specific legal or policy boundary: of course, every policy and law contains what we would expect - the legal and policy oriented purpose it contains.
Modified cultural expectations: laws and policies taken together modify cultural beliefs that have implications for those in the future.
In the 1930’s, the government created Social Security, the mandatory pension scheme for the elderly. In the 1960’s, President Johnson launched the War on Poverty, largely consisting of a welfare policy that provides free money to poor families. These, among others, created a cultural expectation that shifts from individual responsibility to collective (read as taxpayer responsibility) for the individual.
Fast forward to the 2020’s, college students are demanding that the taxpayer pay for their student loans. Stated as “loan forgiveness”, students are demanding that the taxpayer pay directly for their education. This necessarily includes law students who owe $100,000 in debt, which would easily be paid in five years at a law firm, without being onerous.
Beyond the economic, there is another part to the “something for nothing” cultural paradigm: the substantial lowering of property crime punishments. In California, looting, shoplifting and other forms of stealing have be reduced from felonies to misdemeanors if the value is under $950. Prosecutors are not incentivized to bring charges for misdemeanors. Stealing in the absence of justice is the definition of “something for nothing.”
We can all imagine the costs and problems associated with a low freedom, high cost government system: massive government corruption, bribes, huge taxes, crushing debt and low salaries. The Soviet Union of the 1920’s and 30’s was based on the idea of collective responsibility for individual actions. A failed state in many ways, not the least was mass starvation and dissident executions, certainly a high price to pay for free housing or healthcare.
Respectful debates are great about individual public welfare policies because they raise the level of discourse. The reality is that policies and laws that provide a constituency with free stuff, actually increases the demand for free stuff. Our government has seriously degraded the term “earning.” We are in the process of completely replacing “private property ownership” with “public property” that is temporarily assigned. Our debates and discourse must include how we avoid institutionalizing the something for nothing paradigm. Let’s learn from the mistakes of socialist nations.